Chris Weimer wrote:You're assuming a priori that there is a material (sic) realm

I suppose you meant 'immaterial'.

I have assumed no such thing. I simply pointed out that physics can say next to nothing about the existence of an immaterial realm. Do you really understand this? Do you understand that the proper object of the physical sciences is matter, in its extension, motion, and change? The thinking of the physicist, as physicist, is thus constrained to the phenomena. So when I hear a scientist say, "There is no God" I know with certainty that he did not arrive at this conclusion by reasoning from the ground of physical laws. Physics begins with matter. It will never have an answer to the question, at once old and new, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?".

Chris Weimer wrote:Everything we know about the material realm contradicts the suppositions of supporters of the immaterial realm.

You might consider that both Aristotle and Kant say it is perfectly logical to believe that the universe has a Creator. They also say it is also perfectly logical to believe that the universe is uncreated, eternal. But we are here at the very boundaries of what our reason can tell us. The quotation from Nietzsche's "Gay Science" was meant to help you see that the scientific perspective is just that - a perspective.

auctor wrote:Since this topic has veered somewhat nearer to its starting point, I'd like to ask the historical linguists hereabouts why the Latin words cunnus and mentula are the genders that they are. (Look them up yourselves if you can't guess.)Paul

I was thinking about those two words, they are really something difficult to explain.... well, I realized that almost all of the slang words I know in spanish for "mentula" meaning are also feminine; and I was wondering why...

And I guess -and maybe it's worthy to think about it- maybe it has to do with the sexual thinking of the man himself, -the young man more likely- I mean in spanish, these words are feminine and even, some of them, with women names; (such as "manuela" which is commonly used up here) or the derivate "verga" from "verpa" and the world famous "polla". Even though there are also masculine synonimes, I guess this all is pointing to the point that this word is feminine because has ben related with the woman gender; why? maybe because it is the one which brings pleasure, (most likely during masturbation), it is something precious and "lovely" for man -and maybe man's mind has that tendence to relate "lovely" things with feminine gender.

And....about cunnus; this is more complicated, there is an spanish synonime also "coÃ±o" and even the french "con". both of them are masculine also... maybe is somehow the same reason than for mentula or maybe the need to relate opposite things to opposite genders: in a society dominated rather by men Ã¤s latin, if men called Â¨feminineÂ¨their sex, the oposite thing -I mean the feminine sex- should be of the opposite gender, thus masculine. (maybe cunnus is a cognate for "cone"?)

And that's saying something! At first when I saw Paul's quote of "from my favorite enemy" I thought he was referring to you, dear PeterD!

This has been a very entertaining thread to watch. Please do keep it up gentlemen! If I had anything to add, I would, but alas....I haven't spent enough time on philosophy to even begin to argue with either of you.

Chris Weimer wrote:You're assuming a priori that there is a material (sic) realm

I suppose you meant 'immaterial'.

Yes, thank you.

I have assumed no such thing. I simply pointed out that physics can say next to nothing about the existence of an immaterial realm.

Oh rly? It says that's its both implausible and illogical to believe in such. First, there is no evidence of such. Second, modern physics models have shown that the universe does not need a creator. A little Occam's Razor, please?

Do you really understand this? Do you understand that the proper object of the physical sciences is matter, in its extension, motion, and change? The thinking of the physicist, as physicist, is thus constrained to the phenomena. So when I hear a scientist say, "There is no God" I know with certainty that he did not arrive at this conclusion by reasoning from the ground of physical laws.

You're right. He arrived at the conclusion through logic - it is more logical to assume that no immaterial world exists since there is absolutely no evidence for it.

Physics begins with matter. It will never have an answer to the question, at once old and new, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?".

You're right. Nothing, actually, can answer that question - it is so utterly devoid of meaning, that there is no answer for it. There is no "why" - there is only how. Why is based on a homo-centric worldview that tries to explain everything through actions they are familiar with - human actions. For humans, it is apparent that we can answer "why" - "Why did you eat this?" "Because I was hungry." But that's only an illusion - in real life, you ate due to a number of factors too large to count - you can start from the beginning and see all the cumulative causes that lead up to the actual consumption of food.

You might consider that both Aristotle and Kant say it is perfectly logical to believe that the universe has a Creator.

Appeal to authority.

They also say it is also perfectly logical to believe that the universe is uncreated, eternal.

I don't particularly care what they "say" - I work with evidence, not some authority figure.

But we are here at the very boundaries of what our reason can tell us. The quotation from Nietzsche's "Gay Science" was meant to help you see that the scientific perspective is just that - a perspective.

And the best perspective it is, one fully supported by evidence that "theism" and Platonism lack.

Although I've enjoyed our conversation, I fear it is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Perhaps it's best if we surrender the thread to the "gender" people who started it.

Let me add, then, some final observations after which I will say nothing more on this matter.

To dispose, first, of a few minor matters, it is simply disingenuous to say that you don't defer to "authority figures". I can, I suppose, understand your terse reply - "Appeal to authority"- when I mention the conclusions of Aristotle and Kant. After all, neither agrees with you that it is illogical to believe in a Creator. It's so much easier simply to ignore opinions that contradict your own; especially when their authors are intellectual giants. Yet, in apparent support of your own position, you are willing to invoke the authority of William of Occam. Perhaps you are not being disingenuous, but simply illogical.

Now, more importantly -

You err in thinking that the application of the razor makes your position "more logical" (itself a peculiar notion). Your position is simpler (uncreated matter) than mine (God, created matter), but it is not thereby "more logical".

Your understanding of "evidence" is superficial. You fail to see that your interpretation of the evidence is just that - an interpretation. One man looks out upon the glory and might of the universe and finds evidence for God; another finds evidence for a self-sufficient mechanism. But, again, you are fooling yourself if you think that the difference in these interpretations of the same data is a matter of logic.

I'm not sure what to say about your thoughts on the question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Because of your perspective the question that has for millenia engaged the world's most brilliant minds is to you "devoid of meaning". How sad.

Surely you see that your "There is no 'why' - only 'how'" is wrong on its face? Science asks and answers "why" questions all the time: "Why is the sky blue?", "Why do objects fall?", etc. They are, of course, equivalent to "What causes the sky to appear blue?", "What causes objects to fall?". Thus the "Why?" question about the universe is tantamount to "What caused the universe?".

You grant meaning to the former questions because science can answer them. You deny meaning to the latter because science cannot.

Do moderators split topics? If so, this would be an excellent topic to split.

Paul wrote:Let me add, then, some final observations after which I will say nothing more on this matter.

If such, then at least let me defend myself from your accusations.

To dispose, first, of a few minor matters, it is simply disingenuous to say that you don't defer to "authority figures". I can, I suppose, understand your terse reply - "Appeal to authority"- when I mention the conclusions of Aristotle and Kant. After all, neither agrees with you that it is illogical to believe in a Creator. It's so much easier simply to ignore opinions that contradict your own; especially when their authors are intellectual giants. Yet, in apparent support of your own position, you are willing to invoke the authority of William of Occam. Perhaps you are not There is a huge distinction. To begin with, Occam's razor is a logical argument, while you merely gave the opinions of Kant and Aristotle. You apply the razor to your life all the time.

Suppose you and a friend comes across two cars. One car has its front side smashed in and the other car, in front of the first, has its back side smashed in. The front of the fist car is up on the back of the second car. There is glass everywhere around it.

Which is more logical to suppose? That the cars independently got in two different wrecks, without bothering to get fixed, and happened to park in a spot full of glass, with the first car having parked very close to the second car so that it's touching it? Or perhaps that aliens transported from another galaxy a replica of a wreck and planted it on that spot to mark the place where the giant invisible dragon died. Or that the cars got into a wreck?

While the first two options are technically logical, since they involve the more complicated route to get to the present scenario, since they involve more improbabilities for their existence, we are forced to conclude upon available evidence that the third is the most likely.

What is more likely - that some invisible sky-daddy created the universe and everything in it (nevermind who created him), or that all in the universe was created by natural processes. What evidence does either Aristotle or Kant give for the first option?

And speaking of Aristotle, wasn't some of his philosophical observations destroyed by actual science, i.e. Galileo and his experiment at Pisa? Yet you would still call the man an "intellectual" giant? Obviously, that intellect did not feel the need to go out and observe his own "laws".

I will give you this - in saying it was "more logical" I did mean "likelier". I do hope this might clear up some of the confusion. This should nullify your next paragraph.

Your understanding of "evidence" is superficial. You fail to see that your interpretation of the evidence is just that - an interpretation. One man looks out upon the glory and might of the universe and finds evidence for God; another finds evidence for a self-sufficient mechanism. But, again, you are fooling yourself if you think that the difference in these interpretations of the same data is a matter of logic.

One man can also see the glories of the universe and feel that truly the alien race who created all of this must have been powerful. I bet they're green too! Just like plants! Plants are evidence of green aliens!

Surely you must see how ridiculous the notion is of the "glory and might of the universe" being evidence for a creator's existence without even being examined. Especially an arbitary creator such as the one many theists assign.

I'm not sure what to say about your thoughts on the question, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Because of your perspective the question that has for millenia engaged the world's most brilliant minds is to you "devoid of meaning". How sad.

You don't know what to say so you insult me? Now that is sad. And why should anyone care about the one question that for millennia its answer has been sought out? I mean, people for millennia have also been looking for evidence of a higher being - so then would the atheist position be sad to you too? Is there a stop to the ad hominem?

Surely you see that your "There is no 'why' - only 'how'" is wrong on its face? Science asks and answers "why" questions all the time: "Why is the sky blue?", "Why do objects fall?", etc. They are, of course, equivalent to "What causes the sky to appear blue?", "What causes objects to fall?". Thus the "Why?" question about the universe is tantamount to "What caused the universe?".

Does it really ask why? Or how? There is a difference. Why implies a reason, while how implies a cause. There's no problem with looking at what caused the universe, but there is no "why" behind it. There's no reason for its existence, but it is there, so now we figure out how it came to be there.

You grant meaning to the former questions because science can answer them. You deny meaning to the latter because science cannot.

Do you have a better method? Perhaps you'd like to arbitrarily construct a deity and then have it the reason behind it all? Until you can come up with a better method than science, I'll stick with what I have.

BTW, both the French and Ancient Greek word for rock is masculine. La force in French is feminine, and I can't think off the top of my head what it is in Ancient Greek. Perhaps the contrast between masculine/feminine is still attached to words, even in English, and contributed to the above saying. Except that it is object, not rock. Oh well, "object" is masculine in French too ...

Chris Weimer wrote:What is more likely - that some invisible sky-daddy created the universe and everything in it (nevermind who created him), or that all in the universe was created by natural processes

There is some semantics at play here in how the statement is formulated.
Consider the following re-phrasing:
What is more likely - that a huge chunk of mineral matter floating about, by chance split itself into many different parts which, by chance organized themselfs into an orderly fashion, some of which by chemical reaction produce heat, others that don't produce heat circleing around them with others in turn en-circleing them. On one of the pieces, different minerals together, by chance formed living cells. These cells reproduced and, by chance differenciated into all the life forms we see today OR: a divine being created the universe.

(I don't mind interacting with possible responses to this, but I am not as well educated as either Chris or Paul so I won't be able to get into philosophy.)

Both the big bang and divine being answer dally with infinity and a bootstrapping problem. To the philosophical naturalist the divine being creator adds an infinitely complex extra step without actually accounting for ultimate origins.

annis wrote: To the philosophical naturalist the divine being creator adds an infinitely complex extra step without actually accounting for ultimate origins.

It does not add an extra step but exchanges the question of the origin of this "huge chunk of mineral matter floating about" with the question of the origin of the divine being.

My point was that it is easy to formulate a statement or question in a way that elisits a desired response. (There might be something to that effect in your "How to argue" document.)
I can't prove God's existence using science so if scientific proof is the only valid criterium then Chris' position is right.

annis wrote: To the philosophical naturalist the divine being creator adds an infinitely complex extra step without actually accounting for ultimate origins.

It does not add an extra step but exchanges the question of the origin of this "huge chunk of mineral matter floating about" with the question of the origin of the divine being.

I'm not sure I understand your point. But this thread has deviated enough already.

My point was that it is easy to formulate a statement or question in a way that elisits a desired response. (There might be something to that effect in your "How to argue" document.) I can't prove God's existence using science so if scientific proof is the only valid criterium then Chris' position is right.

Whoo-hoo! As required by Textkit law, all debates reach the point where the dispute is about epistemology! But yes, the question centers firmly on what one accepts as reliable evidence.

Chris Weimer wrote:William is correct. Before we can posit an intelligent creator, one would have to explain how that intelligent creator came into existence. Merely saying "goddidit" is a cop out answer.

Why is the onus of proof on us? Can you explain how matter came into existence?

Chris Weimer wrote:

I can't prove God's existence using science so if scientific proof is the only valid criterium then Chris' position is right.

Can you demonstrate that another alternative is just as probable as scientific inquiry? If not, then we are forced to settle on empiricism.

Not quite. We don't have to settle on that. It is only because you don't accept an additional source of knowledge (Read: Primary source) that you have to settle on empiricism.So yes, William is right:

...the question centers firmly on what one accepts as reliable evidence.

Though the interest in this topic may be gone, I want to add something:

Hammurabi wrote:... I was thinking about another possible way within clasification (Â´cause I think the most important thing here is dialogue and knowing other's opinion) I think that each country's mythology has a lot to do with word's genders, (and so mythology has a lot to do with philosophy) The earth:Î· Î“Î±Î¹Î±La terreLa tierraTerra (f)It is one of the first things in every cosmogenesis; and it is usually feminine (maybe we can explain it nearly the same than to sea) the generator of life, "the first mother". ...

I think for the Ancient Greeks the sea was not the source of life in the sense as for us with our knowledge about evolution but they regarded it rather as something dreadful and I think Homer compares it to a desert (but I don't know an instance for this at the moment). The Greeks will have hold sweet water (which I believe is neuter) indispensable for life.
Nevertheless, there may be some other reason than fertility for a common feminine gender (but what about TO PELAOGS?)

Not quite the topic, but somehow related to it is this: In a book about Nordic myths I read about dreaming that this verb changed his voice during the course of time: First, one said "I was dreamt last night that I ate ice-cream" then "Someone dreamt to me I was eating ..." and finallyit was used in active voice.

Does someone know examples of nouns whose gender changed within the same language for other reasons than that gender(s) came out of use.

Chris Weimer wrote:Your additional source of knowledge would have to be verified independently of itself. Can you do this?

No, not independantly of itself. The source is the Bible. (This will likely be where this discussion ends because you don't accept this source. Hciebel steered the thread back to its original topic so maybe that is where it should stay.)

It's el mar in Spanish, which is masculine. It is interesting to note, however, that such monumental and fundamental concepts such as home, sun, moon, ocean, star, ad infinitum really do have common threads throughout languages of any family. While there are exceptions, of course, they tend to group as well. For example, in most Romance languages, "the moon" is feminine, while in most Germanic languages, it is feminine. Odd, hmm?

Nah...that's just a convention of euphony. Due to the way vowels behave in Spanish, sometimes a noun will take the opposite article to make it sound better (i.e. el aguila is much nicer sounding than la aguila [which sounds something like laguila]). The article may change, but the basic masculinity or femininity remains the same. "Mar" is always masculine, though it is at times preceded by the feminine article. Plus, the instances where it does this are rare, and nearly arbitrary. I don't know if you could even consider it a rule.

Due to the way vowels behave in Spanish, sometimes a noun will take the opposite article to make it sound better (i.e. el aguila is much nicer sounding than la aguila [which sounds something like laguila]).

This is not a matter of convention to make words sound better, but it's just how the language evolved. The original feminine article was in fact "ela". When joined with another feminine noun starting with 'a,' the final 'a' of "ela" got elided, so we now say "el agua salada" or "el alma condenada".

Plus, the instances where it does this are rare, and nearly arbitrary. I don't know if you could even consider it a rule.

Since the topic on this thread seems to have wandered back to grammatical gender, I'd like to air a pet peeve of mine: that popular misuse of the word "gender" as a euphemism for "sex" (We already have a perfectly good word for "sex:" "sex!") has led to complete misunderstanding of the concept. Now when you tell someone that Swahili has 20 genders, they look at you like you're crazy! So you have to use some clumsy substitute such as "category" or "agreement class."

"Gender" just means "kind." Originally it was a perfectly fine grammatical term that meant the category a word belonged to such that words used with it had to belong to the same category. The Bantu languages have as few as 3 and as many as 20 categories that words used together have to agree in. Comparative work shows that some of the 3-category systems are just in the process of starting, and others are in the last stages of decay from a once much more florid system.

People have tried to figure out why different words are in different categories, and have come up with some rules such as shape and so on, but there are many exceptions, and some just have to be given up as "miscellaneous." Even though these are morphological systems, they somewhat resemble the obligatory "classifiers" you have to use in Modern Chinese to count anything. (Or two "head" of cattle, and so on, in English.)

There's some indication that the Indo-European languages may once have gone through a "classifying" period, but that by the time of our earliest records, this had already decayed to a 3-category system. Then the historical accident that the word for "man" wound up in one category and the word for "woman" in another led the ancient grammarians to confound them with sex! Later, the "Masculine" and "Neuter" tended to fall together, leaving only two genders, which facilitated the confusion, since that's how many sexes there are. But the very fact that in the modern Scandinavian languages, it's "Masculine" and "Feminine" that have fallen together, leaving two genders: "Common" and "Neuter," is all the proof you need that grammatical gender has at root nothing to do with sex.

In some languages, some words have to agree with each other in membership in some arbitrary category in order to be used together in a sentence. That's "Gender," pure and simple!